I have some questions - does the USFSA consider JW more important then 4CC? I would assume so because spots for next years JW and JGP series are at stake there. Do skaters feel the same? Do you think Agnes and Christina would rather skate at JW or 4CC? Either has a better chance of winning at JW, it would seem, but maybe they'd rather get some face time in Int'l Sr Ranks

Also as long as we're spinning the long hypothetical threads, what if Jeremy had decided after Olys to retire and Evan kept skating, but had Jeremy's results (anyone can have an off season). Would the USFSA have made a different decision? Evan had a really good career, but he wasn't always the most consistent either.

Has it been CONFIRMED anywhere/from anyone of importance that Bradley was asked and declined 4CC?

I would have thought that Bradley would want a competition before worlds since Nationals was his first competition this season. He certainly could use another run-through before worlds.

Bradley is 27 years old and has only recently recovered from a serious injury. It was clear from his S-L-O-W FS performance at Nationals that he hasn't built up much stamina over the few months he's been in training. He needs to work intensively to prepare for Worlds, and a long trip to and from Taiwan with minimal opportunities for practice would effectively cut two weeks out of his training schedule. It makes perfect sense for him to have nixed 4CC.

I have some questions - does the USFSA consider JW more important then 4CC? I would assume so because spots for next years JW and JGP series are at stake there. Do skaters feel the same? Do you think Agnes and Christina would rather skate at JW or 4CC? Either has a better chance of winning at JW, it would seem, but maybe they'd rather get some face time in Int'l Sr Ranks

Winning or medaling at 4CC doesn't offer any particular advantages to the skaters, but medaling at JW does guarantee a spot in the GP next year. In addition, 4CC doesn't have the same prestige as Europeans.

While Agnes and Christina have a shot at medaling at JW, they would likely have no chance to medal at 4CC skating against the Japanese ladies.

All things considered, JW is a better choice for the younger US skaters.

You don't need to defend Flatt's placement on the world team to me. I'm all for it. I was trying to make a point about comparing records.
Are Flatt's GP medals more impressive than Mirai's 4th place finish at the Olympics? Maybe. Maybe not. I can imagine the committee having endless discussions just like this one. And the decision would come down to whether committe member A likes Rachael or not.

Originally Posted by Mathman

Just to make my position clear, I think it is very important to send the best possible team to Worlds. In fact, that is right up there at number two in the USFSA's list of priorities.

Number one is to fulfill their responsibility to carry out a fair, inclusive, and transparent selection process.

1. Mathman, are you arguing that a committee would make the process unfair, exclusive or not transparent? I know you don't like dictatorial way that Mishin runs the Russian Federation (by all reports), but isn't that an extreme of what could potentially be a fair and balanced process?

2. A well constructed process should, and WOULD take that into consideration, Layfan. Of course, you'll get people concerned about the weight of certain events over the other in selection process that contains multiple events of varying "worth." But we have that same thing now with a single event. Additionally, when you have concerns about judging (as we do here with Flatt over Nagasu - a number of people feel she was unfairly overscored), using multiple events at the very least mitigates that factor, somewhat. That stated, it is what it is. I do think that if the USA drops to one spot they will be forced to re-examine the process, but we'll find out.

1. Mathman, are you arguing that a committee would make the process unfair, exclusive or not transparent? I know you don't like dictatorial way that Mishin runs the Russian Federation (by all reports), but isn't that an extreme of what could potentially be a fair and balanced process?

Bottom line, if a committee decides, then you go to worlds or stay home according as to whether or not you please the committee.

If this is not the case -- for instance if there were some kind of point system, so many points for winning the Grand Prix Final, etc. -- then again, we need only a calculator, not a committee.

I do think a committee makes the process less transparent. We all saw who won Nationals. But we did not sit in on the committee's deliberations afterward.

I do think a committee decision would make the process more exclusive. The committee would favor the same-old same-old that they favored in the past, and it would be difficult for a skater like Ross Miner to gain attention. (Unless, of course, he had friends in high places or his coach was able effectively to lobby for him.)

Let's have a committee to decide who goes to worlds. I nominate Joesitz, Pangtongfan and me to serve. We all have opinions, well-founded in our own minds, as to who is most deserving and most likely to do us proud in Tokyo. Is this a good plan?

I do think that if the USA drops to one spot they will be forced to re-examine the process,...

I doubt it. The USFSA has been doing it this way for eighty years. U.S. skaters have won a bunch of stuff, and sometime they didn't. I don't think the federation will panic if things don't work out so well this time.

We have to remember that the USFSA has 100,000 dues-paying members. 99.9% of them will never have anything to do with the ISU and have no reason to care whether or not such an organization exists.

Bottom line, if a committee decides, then you go to worlds or stay home according as to whether or not you please the committee.

If this is not the case -- for instance if there were some kind of point system, so many points for winning the Grand Prix Final, etc. -- then again, we need only a calculator, not a committee.

I do think a committee makes the process less transparent. We all saw who won Nationals. But we did not sit in on the committee's deliberations afterward.

I do think a committee decision would make the process more exclusive. The committee would favor the same-old same-old that they favored in the past, and it would be difficult for a skater like Ross Miner to gain attention. (Unless, of course, he had friends in high places or his coach was able effectively to lobby for him.)

Let's have a committee to decide who goes to worlds. I nominate Joesitz, Pangtongfan and me to serve. We all have opinions, well-founded in our own minds, as to who is most deserving and most likely to do us proud in Tokyo. Is this a good plan?

I can only imagine these boards and all the grumbling and conspiracy theories and cries of foul that would ensue if a committee started making these types of decisions. Maybe the committee would have picked Rachael and maybe Mirai. Just imagine the outcry on both sides.

Just to make my position clear, I think it is very important to send the best possible team to Worlds. In fact, that is right up there at number two in the USFSA's list of priorities.

Number one is to fulfill their responsibility to carry out a fair, inclusive, and transparent selection process.

How do you reconcile these two goals? Surely you're not claiming that whoever wins Nats is always and *necessarily* the best team? You've pretty much convinced me on the question of transparent and consistent process, but that means (IMO) letting go of the other goal... unless you advocate fixing the results at Nats?

I can only imagine these boards and all the grumbling and conspiracy theories and cries of foul that would ensue if a committee started making these types of decisions. Maybe the committee would have picked Rachael and maybe Mirai. Just imagine the outcry on both sides.

This is a good point.

What if there wasn't a tradition of sending the top finishers at nationals and the committee still went with Flatt because of her consistency or because they wanted to send Nagasu a message that they aren't going to bail her out if she continues to freak out in the free skate? Both would be legitimate reasons to pick Flatt over Nagasu and yet if it happened you'd hear cries that Zakrajsek used voodoo on the committee to get Flatt a spot.

What if there wasn't a tradition of sending the top finishers at nationals and the committee still went with Flatt because of her consistency or because they wanted to send Nagasu a message that they aren't going to bail her out if she continues to freak out in the free skate? Both would be legitimate reasons to pick Flatt over Nagasu and yet if it happened you'd hear cries that Zakrajsek used voodoo on the committee to get Flatt a spot.

And if they chose Mirai you'd most definitely hear the same thing about Frank. Come to think about it, it might be fun to watch Frank Carrol make a huge stink if any of his skaters are ever past over by some committee.

In any case, I do think that in this case even most posters agree that Mirai doesn't have nearly the history to justify bumping a solid skater like Rachael. But just trying to throw examples out there and make a point...

By the way, this same ambiguity is built into the mission statement of the USFSA international committee.

The mission of the International Committee is: to select the U.S. Figure Skating Team that wins the maximum number of international medals and berths possible by strategically providing experience to qualified members of the U.S. Figure Skating Team, and by identifying and supporting the best qualified future prospects. The International Committee is also responsible for the approval of criteria used to select athletes to the team envelopes.

If you read just the first part it seems clear. "To select the U.S. Figure Skating Team that wins the maximum number of international medals and berths possible."

But wait. How are we to accomplish this goal? "By strategically providing experience to qualified members of the U.S. Figure Skating Team, and by identifying and supporting the best qualified future prospects."